Please explain negative when talking about how you voted in the senate,maybe iam not smart enough to figure this out but somebody explain this.

I think that Zell's speech was exactly what the undecided needed to hear. Although he was angry, it was a controlled anger. I think there are many habitual Democrats who don't realize just how strange their party has become, and the only way to tell them is...just to tell them straight out.

The whole Pat Buchanan '92 thing is revisionist history. Bush got a big bounce after that convention. He was hurt because he alienated his base with tax increases. If this Bush loses alienating his base will be the same reason--with amnesty, spending, etc.--but will be attributed to Miller's wonderful speech. I have my take on it at my blog.

You're half right Roach. Buchanan didn't lose the '92 election for Bush -- Perot did.

Don't worry so much. The MSM will not be able to spin away the D in front of Miller's name. People can not watch that speech and wonder why Republicans are so angry. They must ask themselves why a Democrat is so angry at his own party.

If it's one thing the frustrating "undecided voters" love it's when someone is big enough to cross party lines for what he believes in. It's almost the entire reason why so many love John McCain.

The Dems have always been the party of emotional reaction. They need that to stir up the often-opposing inter-factional rivalry of their own constituency. Sometimes its the only thing that unifies them at any given moment.

Hearing Zell last night, I was firstly amazed & impressed. I sat up and hung on every word. Second, on reflection, I think it was completely in the Dem tradition of emotional delivery- even if it wasn't in the typical lockstep of Dem Dogma.

And that is exactly what the Dems fear: The emotion-based division of their base. That's their own turf.

Zell Miller's speech was full of angry rhetoric, empty bluster and nothing else. It has been shown that people are prone to making the worst decisions when theyre angry or emotionally charged. Thank goodness Zell isn't leading the fight against terrorism -- he'll take us all down the toilet.

Bill Clinton summed it up for me when he said "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values."

I guess some of us prefer ideology over genuine analysis and deliberation. Those of us will also prefer Bush over Kerry.

Interestingly enough, with all the talk about terrorism, 9/11 etc in the last couple of days, not a single speaker has uttered the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" or talked about a certain Osama Bin Laden.

Then again, why talk about bin Laden? Hasn't the administration shown the links between 9/11 and Iraq ?! ;-)

The hell with the undecided. This is a speech that Republicans needed to hear after two years of left-wing propaganda from the media.

“Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes”.

Remember who this man is: Zell Miller is a Democrat and Democrats are flawed people.

Actually G.H.W. Bush lost in '92 cause he alienated his base through his failure on the "no new taxes" promise & through his executive order that forbade the import of certain firearms he deemed to be "assault weapons". Those two things in combination caused the support he needed to either stay home or vote third party. It's not that Perot stole his votes; it's more like Bush drove his base (enough of it to matter) away from voting for him. G.W. Bush is treading the same path, albeit he's using slightly different steps. But I digest.

Miller is an old southerner. Nothing can be more terrible & beautiful at the same time than an eloquent southerner who's pissed off. (& if you think Miller did a good job, you should have seen it if a southern woman had been in his position) The theory is that some southerners just cannot bring themselves to join the party that caused Sherman & the rest of those bastards to do what they did to us no matter how much they agree with the party's current platform. I'd assume this applies to Miller to some degree or another.

But being southern, even reconstructed southern, means that the racist card will be played early & often despite any lack of actual merit in the claim.

As for Miller challenging Matthew to a duel, I don't doubt it. Hell, I'd even put money on Miller; them old southerners may be a bit ragged, but they can make up for a lack of youthful energy by sheer cussedness.

Miss Annika, you got to see one of the rare things in politics; a member of the opposing party who is more idealogically grounded in conservative ideas than most people in the GOP. Think Bush agrees with Miller about the repeal of the 17th amendment? Or Miller's healthy respect for the Constitution in general (& the 2nd amendment specifically)? That'd be a resounding "hell no", but Bush will use him as an example of how Bush if a better candidate than Kerry. Miller's very presence should shame Bush into repenting of his quasi-socialist ways, but it won't.

Miller is a conservative. Bush is merely a Republican. Do you see the difference?

(& by no means is Miller perfect, but in certain veyr important areas he represents conservatism better than most in the Republican party.)

Oh, as for Atrios, et al... I wonder how effeminate their excuses would be if Miller took exception to their remarks & called them out? Miller may be up there in years, but I'd lay down good Confederate money on him agin Atrios, Kos, & the rest of those socialized punks even if Miller took them on as a group. (I realize dueling is illegal but I've felt for a while this is a mistake. More duels = less baseless libel & slander. :D )

What a fun speech! Different voters look for different reasons to go to the polls on election day. Oddly, Democratic Zell's speech was designed for a section of the Republican base- to give them a reason to go to the polls and not stay home.

I wonder about the reaction of the Soccer Moms- anyone have thoughts?

Soccer moms aren't that impoertant to the repubs. Here's why:

Soccer moms aren't going to vote for Bush no matter how left he leans or how much he alienates his base for their sake. It.Just.Won't.Happen.

However there has been a conversion amongst the soccer moms - the term for them is security moms. In essence it's a soccer mom who has realized that the purpose of goverment is national defense as opposed to wealth redistribution. (I speak generally; don't take from this that there's a complete conversion but rather it's a shift in priorities). Those will respond positively to Miller's speech, but then again they were not really part of Kerry's base (anymore) so it's not likely to do anything other than reassure them that abandoning Kerry is best for all concerned.

Now don't misunderstand - I think Bush & the Repubs could be doing much, much more for national security w/o endangering our Rights. In fact showing more respect for our Rights would increase dramatically the amount of security we have here at home. But the newly converted (as in since 2001) security moms aren't typically politically aware enough to see beyond the two party system or push for more than the party line. In other words, they see only two options & will go with the one they seem more confident in to protect their kids instead of exploring the idea that they are the only ones really responsible for their & their family's safety.

So soccer moms really won't be swayed & someone should imprint that in reverse on a clue bat for the repubs to use on themselves. However the security moms are a growing faction coming out of the of soccer moms group & they won't be scared away by a tough stance on national defense.

I'm not sure "soccer moms" is a particularly useful analytical category. Consider:

--soccer mom #1 is an executive at a technology company, raised by parents who were small businesspeople
--soccer mom #2 is a stay-at-home mother, Jewish and with a strong committment to Israel
--soccer mom #3 is a lawyer in private practice
--soccer mom #4 is a screenwriter, raised by parents who were leftist academics

What exactly is the reason for thinking that these people would all vote as part of a bloc? Does the condition of (a)being female, and (b)having kids of a certain age trump the whole range of factors including profession, family background, and religion?

The results are in:

Bush 52, Kerry 41 and Nader 3.

This too will pass, and at the end, it will narrow. But, is it better than the other alternative?

About 60 days out is a serious period. The tendency is to go into a "prevent defense". I have said, for a long time, that a "prevent defense" prevents winning. I hope not.

Spending a hour plus with that genius ("Boy Genius" is what GWB calls him) Karl Rove in New York has convinced me that we will not be cocky or stupid. But things happen. Kerry will shake up his team. I pray that James Carville does not come aboard, because he is the only one they have that is a good as Karl. We will see the softer side of Bush soon, I think.

By the way, "Boy Genius" has another nickname as well, reserved for when things go wrong, it is "Turd Blossom".

I pray I do not hear that particular name again out of GWB's mouth until after January.

It is my impression that the Bush campaign, having waited this long to start going after Kerry full throttle (up to now they've relied on surrogates), they will not go into a prevent defense mode. Especially now that they have momentum.